Robb: Douglas, Dems post lame ed funding ideas

Last week, school Superintendent Diane Douglas and legislative Democrats posted entries in the education finance derby.

Ducey's proposal is still the only horse in the race with a chance of reaching the finish line.(Photo: Mark Henle, Mark Henle/The Republic)

The proposal by legislative Democrats is the most easily dismissed, since it is so transparently disingenuous.

According to the Democrats, the state should just use existing reserves to pay schools what they claim they are owed in inflation funding. Ongoing revenue growth will make that sustainable in the future.

Based on what is currently known about state finances, that would be an imprudent gamble. But it would have a decent shot of paying off.

Even with the current historically slow growth, such an increase in the basic state aid formula could be absorbed with a modest cushion. But only if a lid is kept on everything else state government does.

In K-12 education, that would mean no return of state-funded all-day kindergarten. The state contribution to major school capital expenses would remain at essentially zero.

No restoration of funding for the universities. No increase in child care subsidies. No return of the KidsCare health insurance program.

No increase in funding so the Department of Child Safety can clear the investigative backlog or provide additional programs for troubled families.

Democrats, of course, favor increased spending in all those areas, which is what makes their education funding proposal disingenuous.

The only revenue increase Democrats proposed was capping the corporate tax credit for contributions to private school scholarships. That’s a good idea, but won’t come close to funding the state government Democrats would like to see.

Rather than this kind of charade, legislative Democrats would better serve the state by presenting a true alternative path. Identify the state government Democrats think we should have and a tax increase sufficient to pay for it. Bellying up to the bar that way might actually improve their electoral prospects.

But her finance proposal would be more than an imprudent gamble. It would be fiscally reckless. And she wants to blow up the state’s accountability system and replace it with something even more toothless.

Douglas proposes that the state dip into reserves and appropriate $400 million immediately for teacher salaries and fewer students per classroom. That would be paid for in the future through growth in state revenues and perhaps Gov. Doug Ducey’s proposal to increase payouts from the state land trust.

Taken alone, that might also be sustainable. But Douglas says that this money would be in addition to anything schools get from the inflation funding lawsuit.

A Superior Court judge has put that figure at $336 million, compounded by annual inflation and student growth. That would put the total hit north of $700 million a year. Based upon current projections, that would be far from sustainable. It would break the bank.

Given the current slow growth in state revenues, any meaningful increase in K-12 funding has to reduce the state’s liability in the lawsuit to have a hope of being sustainable.

Douglas, unsurprisingly, proposes to blow up Common Core and replace it with state-developed standards.

I think Common Core is doomed to failure, since it is based upon a mark – 100 percent of students graduating from high school ready for college or advanced technical training – that is unrealistic.

However, it would be realistic to have all high school graduates actually have high-school level literacy and numeracy. And that would be a giant step forward in student achievement.

Whatever the standard, there is only one way to determine if it’s being met: state tests with consequences for students.

Douglas, however, is opposed to high-stakes tests for students. And she would dilute the grading system for schools, including such things as after school programs, to the point of utter meaninglessness.

The rap on Ducey’s state land proposal is that it is only temporary and schools need a more permanent source of additional funding. But, as the other entries in the derby illustrate, a more permanent source requires a substantial improvement in state revenue growth or a tax increase. Neither appears currently in prospect.

If the goal is to get schools badly needed increased funding as quickly as possible, Ducey’s proposal remains the only horse in the race with a chance to reach the finish line.